I take my 30 years of reading the great classics of Economics, Literature, History, Political Science, Philosophy and Theology, and apply what I've learned to the most demanding problems which leaders face, especially investors and entrepreneurs.

Australia's Rejection Of Kevin Rudd May Foretell Political Change In The U.S.

With the victory of the Tony Abbott led conservatives in Australia, we can see that the Anglosphere is now post progressive. The English speaking nations of the world: England, New Zealand, Canada and now Australia are governed by conservatives. America stands apart from them as the sole remaining major leftist-governed power in the Anglo world.

If you’d like to throw India into the mix too, you find Manmohan Singh, who is pushing to deregulate foreign investment markets and has just appointed a monetary hawk, Raghuram Rajan, as the new head of the Reserve Bank of IndiaBank of India. Canada entirely skipped the recent wave of progressivism which swept the Anglosphere, and under PM Stephen Harper has surpassed the United States in economic freedom. Our northern neighbor is now listed by both the Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom and the Fraser Institute’s Economic Freedom of the World as the most economically free nation in North America. Harper has been particularly diligent in cutting corporate taxes while the U.S. now has the highest corporate tax rates in the developed world.

England rejected the hard-core labourite policies of Gordon Brown, putting the Tory David Cameron in power. New Zealand has a center right government in power as well. The English speaking peoples (to borrow Winston’s Churchill’s evocative phrase) tend to move in a sort of partial political sync with one another. Thatcher paved the way for Reagan, preceding him, anticipating him and inspiring him. Then we see the near simultaneous rise of Blair and Clinton, then the later hawkish Blair corresponds with Bush. Brown and Obama moved both their countries hard left in step with one another. And as of last year, England moved right under Cameron. In Australia, John Howard allied with and paralleled with his friend Bush, Russ/Gilliard tracked with Obama.

And in what could herald yet another political shift, this time back to the right, Australia just handed a decisive victory to the Liberal National Party (the Australian conservative party), and a decisive defeat to the incumbent Labour Party under Kevin Rudd. Why?

We shouldn’t over-emphasize the ideological side of this election. The incumbent party was deeply divided over a personality contest between Julia Gillard, and Rudd. Gillard was a member of Rudd’s cabinet who ousted him in a coup. Rudd then staged a counter-coup in which he came back and ousted her. On the other hand, the counter-coup helped Labor’s prospects given that Gillard had become deeply unpopular, and perceived as overly ambitious and disloyal to the likable Rudd. They party was perceived as chaotic and incompetent.

But it wasn’t all personalities, the philosophical differences were sharp. Green policies were front and center. Tax policy was important too: Abbott promised to cut business taxes. Monetary policy: Abbott argued against debasement of the Australian dollar in order to promote growth, and against competitive devaluation in foreign exchange markets. Social policy: Abbott, a practicing Roman Catholic (and former seminarian), opposed calls for same sex marriage, while Rudd argued for it, with awkward attempts to link the Bible’s opposition to homosexuality with its alleged support for slavery.

In short, their issues and our issues are quite similar and Australia may well be a portent of political change in the U.S. If not, as the U.S. lags the rest of the English speaking world in freedom, it will gradually lag the rest of that world in wealth and power.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

The difference is that we don’t have such a good alternative and we have a lot more entitled folks who vote their self interests and are basically sheep. In New Zealand they have a lot of sheep but none are allowed to vote.

How many lies do you have to paint your narrative? Manmohan Singh belongs to two leftist parties, both of which are undeniably further to the left than the Democratic Party of Obama. Nevermind that the US’s corporate tax rate is below Japan’s, or that Tony Abbott’s Liberal Party is economically to the left of the Democratic Party, nor the completely unfounded allegation of a ‘recent wave of progressivism which swept the Anglosphere’, which has not been suggested in any article I’ve read in years. Not even minding that while Canada’s ranking on the Index of Economic Freedom has increased, its actual score has considerably decreased under the Conservative Party.

Just have to ask, why do you have to be so dishonest in your attempt to portray the Democrats and Obama as “leftist” when just about everything about their economics would be rightist in any other corner of the world?

HOWEVER, Mr. Abbott acknowledges climate change, is pro-choice, has criticized Catholicism (more rightly priests) and supports a universal health care system funded by the Australian government. (Mr. Bowyer knows this I am sure!) (BTW I actually miss your radio show–are you on anywhere????)

HARDLY what we in the US would consider conservative or even Democratic. It is precisely the shift of US politics to far right loony tea party, nonfactual hyperbole that is stalling our centrist President from making more progress than he has…that holds the country back as well.

Our current president is not a centrist, not even close. However, you are correct that Abbott is center right. And no, I’ve had my fill of radio, I quit hosting several years ago and don’t intend to ever go back to it.

Some examples of Obama’s centrist ideas: 1. A market based exchange for health care that encourages competition. 2. Refusal to ‘nationalize’ banks during the days following the wall street mess. 3. Respect of the war powers act. 4. Refusal to implement a carbon tax. 5. Quickly abandoning the public option or medicare for all. 6. Fair and balanced approach to deficit reduction…with a paltry high income tax hike. 7. Support of decreasing the overall corporate tax rate in exchange for ending special deductions…sounds like Rand Paul to me!

It has always been a political tradition for conservative to rule because the elite in the society hate any tendency for change that tend to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor, and such tendencies by the leftist party will be resisted, thus bringing back the rightist to maintain the status quo